It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: The issue of the naming of the pyramids was not my concern here. You claimed in this thread that there were 111 pyramids in Egypt - a statement that was patently wrong and which required to be corrected. Googled or otherwise.
Oh, do grow up.
Originally posted by Byrd
However, the point still stands that the names of the pyramids are known, including the names for the three pharnonic pyramids on Giza. In fact, you yourself refer to Khufu's Ahket (horizon) a number of times.
edit on 30-1-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by thePharaoh
Originally posted by Byrd
However, the point still stands that the names of the pyramids are known, including the names for the three pharnonic pyramids on Giza. In fact, you yourself refer to Khufu's Ahket (horizon) a number of times.
edit on 30-1-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)
yes Akhet means horizon....the area between the earth and sky = SHU....read page six on the paperedit on 31-1-2011 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)
Akhet - 'Mountain with the Rising Sun'
Ideogram in 3ht, 'horizon'
The sign 3ht, born of the union of the disk and the hieroglyph for mountain, is rather inappropriately translated as 'horizon,' associating it with a modern notion which is foreign to Egyptian thinking.
The sign is a relatively recent creation of Egyptian writing, unknown in the Pyramid Texts, in which the sign that determines the word 3ht is the hieroglyph of a sandy island. The earliest known documentation of the sign is from the Fifth Dynasty, an epoch that saw the official affirmation of the solar cult. Thus the hieroglyph represents the point where the sun appears above the earth at daybreak and where it touches the earth again at sunset. This is the proper meaning of the ideogram, connected to the root 3h, 'to shine'.
- Maria Carmela Betro, 'Hieroglyphics', page 161
Originally posted by vermonster
The Location: Giza
The Date: 12/3/2012
The Sky:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/462499b5cb43.png[/atsimg]
I see 4 planets. The article you linked to mentions 4 gods.....
Coincidence?
Originally posted by thePharaoh
Byrd there are many pyramids...around 100 like the author says...but he classes the giza complex as a whole as a religious shrine...not an individual pyramid.....also, he talks about the akhet on page 6 and provides quotes from passages, PAGE 6...take a look.
but yea....iv read up more and more online about the amduat and the gods....especially the baboon gods and the six small pyramids
...sheesh how can you egyptologists miss this...Byrd face it he is right....it was a religious complex.
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by vermonster
The Location: Giza
The Date: 12/3/2012
The Sky:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/462499b5cb43.png[/atsimg]
I see 4 planets. The article you linked to mentions 4 gods.....
Coincidence?
Originally posted by vermonster
reply to post by Lucifer84
I am unsure.
I can tell you that Jupiter can be seen in the row as well, i just couldn't screen cap it with al the others.
I have recently begun research on this topic from information obtained from This Thread
It's fascinating stuff.
Oh and OP, the new pharaoh will be Prince William......sorry to let you down. Pretty anti-climatic eh?
He is the son of our modern day Isis (princess diana) who was sacrificed. He was born on the summer solstice
RIP Rik Clay
peace
edit on 3-2-2011 by vermonster because: (no reason given)edit on 3-2-2011 by vermonster because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Slipdig1
So Byrd your willing to state as fact that they were religious complexes.
I mean considering you only know four experts you say.
Thats a big call, from the experts that I know, (10) they can't seem to agree whether they are toilets, temples or graves.
I think the Author of this post was just trying to bring fourth a new arguement or theory,
and you as a moderator affectively shot him down, with false proofs.
I didn't think that this was in the nature of the site.
But hey your a super-mod, you know more than me right?
Could they have been renamed at a later date?
Could there usage have changed over many years?